4.7 Article

An assessment of river habitat quality as an indicator of conservation status. A case study in the Northwest of Spain

Journal

ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS
Volume 57, Issue -, Pages 131-138

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.04.032

Keywords

Habitat heterogeneity; Riparian forest; Building ecosystems; Restoration measures; Human impacts

Funding

  1. Augas de Galicia, Xunta de Galicia (Research Project PLAN UMIA)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There are several methodologies for the characterization and evaluation of river habitats. The scientific community has made a great effort in designing the best indexes for this purpose, and they have also been tested in different countries and rivers. Nevertheless, there has not been a transfer of that knowledge to land managers of these spaces or, at least, to those who design improvement and restoration measures. The aim of our research was the assessment of the Riparian Forest Quality Index (QBR), the Riparian Quality Index (RQI) and the Fluvial Habitat Index (IHF) as indicators of the ecological status of fluvial habitats and their application in restoration projects. The main results of this study were that the IHF index could be used as a support resource and as a monitoring tool to assess the habitat heterogeneity before and after any action is taken. However, when we evaluated the QBR and RQI indexes, the best results were with the first one. The total QBR suggests the urgency level of restoration in the section that is evaluated, and each of its sub-indexes identifies which element of the river is affected. Therefore, it will be a useful tool in decision making for the conservation of these characteristic spaces, especially for engineers who, as a result of their experience in biological and ecological processes, are involved in the design and building of ecosystems, particularly in rivers and on their banks. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available